CHENANGO COUNTY TENTATIVE BUDGET 2017 2017 Preliminary Budget For - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CHENANGO COUNTY TENTATIVE BUDGET 2017

2017 Preliminary Budget For Board Review

1) Have a balanced budget using reasonable revenue and expense expectations. 2) Other than in exigent circumstances adhere to the tax cap. 3) Maintain a NY State Comptroller's rating of "not in fiscal stress.“ 4) Remain debt free. 5) Maintain a minimum of $15,000,000 general fund surplus (i.e. not otherwise earmarked). The estimated current surplus balance is about $17.000.000 6) Over the course of the next four years, reduce the application of General Fund surplus applied to the following year's budget to $1,500,000 (< 2% of the General and Social Services budgets).

.

Chenango County Guiding Financial Precepts 2017 Budget

2017 Chenango County Tentative Budget Fact Sheet

1)

Under the tax cap for the sixth straight year - of $186,000 by about $8,000.

2)

The average tax rate increases by $.06/$1,000 of assessed value or .47% from 2016 (about $6.00 per average residence). Individual town rates will vary depending on equalization rates and assessed value totals.

3)

Chenango County qualified, based on adhering to the Tax Cap and having a State approved Efficiency Plan for the NYS Tax Freeze program for 2017 for STAR eligible properties. Taxable values are up three-tenths, .29% of 1%. Equalized values are down (.45)% for the second year in a row.

4)

The County remains debt free.

5)

Maintains a NY Comptroller's rating of "not in fiscal stress”.

6)

Maintains our repaving and equipment replacement programs for the County Road system.

2017 Chenango County Tentative Budget Fact Sheet Continued

8)

Completes the development of Landfill Cell Four at a cost of $4.2 million without incurring debt.

9)

We are now operating a school based Mental Health Service in the Norwich, Otselic Valley and Oxford School Districts

10) Our self funded health plan has a 2017 cost increase of just 2.5% compared to the

national average of 5%.

11) All 2016 programs are continued in 2017. 12) Spending is up 1.05 million, up 1.16% from 2016’s 88.4 million spending level and

• nly 3% from 2013.

13) Revenues, while achievable, continue to be at very at robust levels. 14) Lessens the application of 2016 General Fund Surplus toward reducing the 2017

budget by $150,000 to $2,050,000. This is the sixth consecutive reduction from the $3,683,000 applied to balance the 2011 budget.

15) Positions us to reduce the application of General Fund surplus by $150,000 per year

• ver each of the next four years to reach a target application of $1,500,000.

16) Nearly 40% of our local real property tax levy of 25 million goes to Albany to

support Medicaid. Notes: A) Subject to Board of Supervisors action/revision

B) Subject to minor adjustments until public filing date of 11/15/16

NYS Comptroller’s Fiscal Stress Report For Counties Based on 2015

NYS Comptroller’s Fiscal Stress Summary for Chenango County

The summary graph projects a fiscal stress score based on a three-year trend

• analysis. This score is not based on data submitted by the municipality. The

predicted score is most reliable for municipalities which have followed a level trend but is less reliable for municipalities with scores that do not follow a steady trend. Financial information provided on this page is pulled from reports submitted by the municipality. OSC performs a formal review of the information on an annual basis. However, OSC is unable to verify the accuracy of all the data elements upon which an entity’s prior year fiscal stress score is based. Note: Fiscal data may change after fiscal stress scores are released for a given

• year. As a result, the data presented in this workbook may vary from

previously released data. As of 31-AUG-2016

NYS Comptroller’s Indicator Scoring Summary For Chenango County

Fiscal Indicators

Value Scores 2014 2015 2014 2015 1

Assigned & Unassigned FB/Gross Exp (General Fund) 21.9% 24.8% Assigned & Unassigned FB/Gross Exp (Combined Funds) 22.9% 26.2%

2

Total FB / Gross Exp (General Fund) 30.8% 32.1% Total FB / Gross Exp (Combined Funds) 32.0% 33.9%

3

# of Operating Deficits in Three Years or last year's deficit <= -10% 2 2 2 2

4

Cash Ratio (Cash/Current Liability) 714.2% 698.3%

5

Cash as a % of Monthly Exp 467.1% 515.6%

6

Short Term Debt Issuance (Debt/Revenues) 0.0% 0.0%

7

Short Term Debt Trend (consecutive debt or BN in last year)

8

Pers Srvc and Emp Benefits as a % of Revenues (3 yr avg) 46.2% 47.4%

9

Debt Service as a % of Revenues (3 yr avg) 0.1% 0.0%

Environmental Indicators

Value Score

1 Change in Population

• 1.8%

3 2 Change in Median Age 11.7% 3 Median Age of Population 42.9 4 Child Poverty Rate 18.7% 5 Change in Child Poverty Rate

• 1.4%

6 Change in Property Value (4 year avg) 0.6% 7 Property Value Per Capita $47,792 8 Change in Unemployment Rate

• 0.9

9 Unemployment Rate 6.2% 10 Change in Total Jobs in County

• 0.2%

1 11 Reliance on State and Federal Aid 24.1% 12 Change in State and Federal Aid 10.1% 13 Constitutional Tax Limit N/A N/A 14 Change in Sales Tax Receipts

• 0.8%

3

#

CHENANGO COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

Chenango County Fiscal Score (Weighted)

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Percent Exhausted

Chenango County Constitutional Tax Limit 10 Year Comparison of Percent Exhausted

Chenango County 10 Year Tax Rate Comparison

10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Tentative Tax Rate Per Thousand Year

Tax Cap Cap Imp Impose sed

Chenango County Sales Tax 10 Year Comparison

15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Tentanive Millions Years

1.500 1.550 1.600 1.650 1.700 1.750 1.800 1.850 1.900 1.950 2.000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Billions

Chenango County Ten Year Comparison Of Actual Expense To Revenue General Fund

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Millions Year Revenues Expenses

Chenango County 10 Year Comparison Of Use Of General Fund Surplus

10 Year Average $4.4 Million

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Applied Fund Balance Appropriation Of Surplus During The Fiscal Year

Culture And Recreation 0.16% Economic Assistance 30.52% Education 1.45% Fringe Benefits 12.38% General Government 6.92% Health 11.71% Home And Community Svces 3.56% Public Safety 12.27% Transportation 21.02%

Real Property Taxes 28% Sales Tax 16% Other Tax Related Items 2% Departmental Income 20% State Aid 16% Federal Aid 13% Other 2% Applied Surplus 3%

CHENANGO COUNTY 2017 TENTATIVE BUDGET REVENUES CHENANGO COUNTY 2017 TENTATIVE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS

CHENANGO COUNTY 2017 PROPERTY TAX RATE DISTRIBUTION

CHENANGO COUNTY 2017 TENTATIVE BUDGET

HOW THE COUNTY TAX LEVY IS DISTRIBUTED BASED ON AVERAGE TENTATIVE COUNTY RATE FOR EVERY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN TAXABLE FULL VALUE Economic Assistance $ 6.41 Public Safety $ 1.86 County Roads & Transportation $ 2.49 General Government $ 0.39 Health $ 0.77 Legal and Court Facilities $ 0.74 Education $ 0.37 Home & Community Services $ 0.39 Culture & Recreation $ 0.05 AVERAGE COUNTY RATE PER THOUSAND $ 13.46

Economic Assistance 47.60% Public Safety 13.82% County Roads & Transportation 18.49% General Government 2.92% Health 5.73% Legal and Courts 5.48% Education 2.75% Home & Community Services 2.87% Culture & Recreation 0.35%

CHENANGO COUNTY 2017 PROPERTY TAX RATE DISTRIBUTION

THE IMPACT OF MANDATES IN MAINTAINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPERTY CAP

2015 NEW YORK STATE RANKING FOR USE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS AS A REVENUE SOURCE TO FUND STATE GOVERNMENT

Source: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/12/where-states-get-their-money

CHENANGO COUNTY 2017 TENTATIVE BUDGET IMPACT OF STATE PROGRAM MANDATES ON THE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX LEVY

• Mandated programs require a county to strictly adhere to rules set by the

state, which define the scope, eligibility, frequency and level of service, amount of benefits, etc. The State also controls the levels of funding participation for these mandated programs Counties have virtually no ability to control the cost of these state dictated mandates.

• According to NYSAC, over the next several years the State will implement

state tax rebate check programs and tax breaks for select special interest groups and industrial sectors, not including STAR, that will exceed $3 billion

• n an annual basis – none of which will actually reduce any homeowner’s or

small businesses’ property tax bills. New York State has required county taxpayers to finance with local property taxes dozens of state mandated programs that, for the most part, other states do not finance through property taxes. We believe that one of the best ways to improve New York’s economic climate and competitiveness is to not just to slow the rate of growth in property taxes, but to actually lower them from today’s levels. We believe that aligning the cost of the state’s mandated programs with the State Government, that defines and controls them, will result in an historic and sustainable reduction in county property taxes and create a more appropriate and equitable distribution of program costs.

• Combined, the following ten mandated programs make up 84.69% of the

tentative County tax levy for 2017 compared to 81.18% in 2016.

MEDICAID- Each week counties and NYC send $140 million in local taxes to State bank accounts, in order to cover costs for the State Medicaid program. Counties in New Y

• rk spend more on Medicaid than all the counties in the rest of

the nation combined. These are big numbers and they have big impacts on local property taxpayers. The positive thing is that the state capped the growth in local Medicaid costs to no more than 3 % per year beginning in 2005, and beginning in 2015 these costs are to no longer grow.

Impact to 2017 T ax Levy 9,936,000 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 40.2%

$9,700,000 $9,800,000 $9,900,000 $10,000,000 $10,100,000 $10,200,000 $10,300,000 $10,400,000 $10,500,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CHENANGO COUNTY MEDICAID COSTS

TEMPORARY ASSIST ANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES-(T ANF)-provides time-limited cash assistance and non-cash support services to low income families. The impact of the state withdrawing its fiscal commitment to their programs puts counties at full financial risk for administering these programs and has shifted more than $300 million annually to counties’ taxpayers in order to backfill the loss of state administrative funding. Impact to 2017 T ax Levy $850,000 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 3.44%

$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CHENANGO COUNTY TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES COSTS

SAFETY NET-While the program historically was funded 50 percent by the State and 50 percent by counties, the 201 1-12 State budget increased the local share to 71 percent and dropped the State share to 29 percent. Indigent burials mandated under this program are subsidized by the State at $261.00 per burial. Impact to 2017 T ax Levy $855,000 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 3.46%

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CHENANGO COUNTY SAFETY NET COSTS

CHILD WELFARE-Counties administer and fund a share of the costs of providing child welfare services to children and families in need. These activities include services, interventions and investigations designed to prevent child abuse and protect children’s welfare. Over the last two budget cycles the State has cut its share of non-federal funding from about 65 percent down to 62 percent, shifting about $60 million in costs to counties, which now cover 38 percent of the costs for Child Welfare. These cost shifts result in direct cost increases for local Property taxpayers to support State program. Impact to 2017 T ax Levy $1,375,000 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 5.57%

$1,350,000 $1,400,000 $1,450,000 $1,500,000 $1,550,000 $1,600,000 $1,650,000 $1,700,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CHENANGO COUNTY CHILD WELFARE COSTS

INDIGENT DEFENSE-As required by constitutional mandate, New Y

• rk enacted

Article 18-B of the County Law that requires each county to establish a plan to provide counsel to indigent defendants. One of the major problems with this system is that it places significant financial burden

• n the counties as well as potentially huge, unexpected cost swings between fiscal years. Current legislation passed unanimously by the State

Legislature, currently sits on the Governor's desk unsigned. Impact to 2017 T ax Levy $481,702 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 1.95%

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CHENANGO COUNTY INDIGENT DEFENSE COSTS

PRESCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION and EARL Y INTERVENTION -Even though counties continue to bear the financial burden for service. Federal and state law places responsibility for the program with the education system and gives decision-making authority to school districts. The early Intervention Program (EIP) provides services to children 0-3 years of age who have developmental delays or disabilities. Since its inception, the cost to provide services to eligible children has increased dramatically and now exceeds $650 million annually , with counties responsible for $330 million of this total. Impact to 2017 T ax Levy $1,056,786 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 4.28%

$930,000 $935,000 $940,000 $945,000 $950,000 $955,000 $960,000 $965,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CHENANGO COUNTY PRESCHOOL EDUCATION AND EARLY INTERVENTION COSTS

PROBATION-Probation services are provided by counties as mandated under New Y

• rk State Executive Law. Over the last several decades,

State reimbursement to counties for probation has dwindled, leaving counties to shoulder an increasing share of the costs for this program— 82.76% of costs are now supported by county taxpayers. Impact to 2017 T ax Levy $376,755 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 1.53%

$290,000 $300,000 $310,000 $320,000 $330,000 $340,000 $350,000 $360,000 $370,000 $380,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CHENANGO COUNTY PROBATION COSTS

JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

• Counties are required under State law to operate and maintain local jails at local expense. The State

determines the standards for the operation and maintenance of jail facilities including mandatory staffing levels, size and construction of the facilities with little regard for cost savings and efficiencies Impact to 2017 T ax Levy $1,403,023 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 5.68%

$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CHENANGO COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY COSTS

NYS RETIREMENT FUND-Counties are required to participate in the New Y

• rk State Public Employees Retirement System, along with other

local governments. However, counties have no control over pension costs or benefits awarded to their own employees as these benefit levels are determined by the Governor and State Legislature. Impact to 2017 T ax Levy $3,,328,185 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 13.48%

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CHENANGO COUNTY NYS RETIREMENT FUND COSTS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE FUNDING-Costs associated with community colleges were established under state law as a three way partnership between the state, county and the student with an expectation and statutory requirement that each would share equally in the cost of providing educational services. Over the years the equal sharing of costs arrangement has been breached by the State legislature through permanent law formula overrides as part of the annual State budget process and to address state budget shortfalls. A recent trend is for community colleges to sponsor credit bearing courses in district high schools using district staff and facilities and charging back counties for sponsored FTE units as well as capital chargebacks for on-campus infrastructure improvements. Community college charges associated with these courses increased mandated chargeback costs by 22.75% in 2014. Impact to 2017 T ax Levy $1,260,000 Percent of 2017 T ax Levy 5.10%

200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 EST 2016

COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHARGEBACKS

General Charges High School Charges